vo2max question serious answers only

You can get different answers to this. Mine would be that it is the most Oxygen you are capable of consuming while performing any specific physical exercise. With "consuming" being the difference between how much you breathe in and how much you breathe out. It must be associated with a particular type of exercise, which means you could have a different VO2max running, swimming, cycling, rowing, skating or squeesing a rubber ball. In other words a group of muscles is capable of taking in and processing just so much oxygen per unit (usually expressed as how much per minute) of time. As you work harder (with your chosen activity) the exercising muscle(s) need more and more energy, some of which is provided anaerobically and some of which is provided aerobically. At some point, even with harder work, you can not provide any more energy aerobically and your VO2 (volume of oxygen you are consuming) will reach its maximum capability, a VO2max for that particular activity. The greater the VO2max the more energy you can provide your exercising muscles with, ie. your work capacity goes up. Training increases VO2max to some degree, so it's a good idea to train (rather specifically)if you want to increase VO2max. It may sound that I am saying you may not have to train, and to some extent that is true -- you could improve VO2max without training,depending on what your current health status is. Someone who is anemic, for example could improve VO2max by just getting on a better diet.

Consider that VO2 max is less important that vVO2 max which is the velocity or speed at which you achieve the maximum oxygen levels JT mentioned. A person with a high maximum such as 75 ml/kg/min or more who reaches his/her highest levels at just 5 minutes per mile is not going to beat another with a 70 who runs at 4:45 per mile when the highest O2 intake levels are recorded. Really, race performances are what count. Everything else is like the borders of a grand painting; framing the heart of the masterpiece.

jtupper, you seem to know a lot about this stuff. Ever consider writing a book? :)

Strange that you mention that. I just finalized a deal this week to work on one (two different ones to be exact). I hope I can find the time.

well, if you stopped spending time on running message boards, you might get a running start...

(I am JUST KIDDING!!!)

:-)

Like everywhere else I learn some things here that are useful. Gotta never stop learning or thinking

so true...

Jack, we all appreciate your input here. And I'm sure in this case I speak on behalf of the whole board (except maybe that nutjob world class coach #1).

I've heard two different values for VO2 Max that are important: relative max and absolute max. There are several examples of elites who test higher in the lab than their performances indicate. For instance, Aouita had a max of 94 once while his performances indicated something like 82. Pre had a tested max of 84 while his performance based best was just above 79. Has anyone ever heard of a fudge factor for this? I've had mine tested at 74.8, but, the same summer, never managed to perform higher than 65 on the performance charts. Does anyone have some logic for this?

The performance charts have to make an assumption of what percentage of VO2max a runner can run at during a race. Also, a race has so many other factors included, perhaps most importantly how good the athlete's lactate tolerance is. This could make performances for less than 5k especially variable between charts and lab values.

I believe Absolute VO2max is how much total oxygen you are able to process during the lab test (mL/min). Relative VO2max specifies the number we are interested in, taking body weight into consideration (mL/kg/min). All of the scores mentioned for a particular runner are relative VO2max's. (ml/kg/min)

Joel is correct that there is an absolute and a relative (relative to body mass) VO2 (whether max or submax (as in measuring economy). The absolute value indicates how much energy you can actually produce aerobically. It is expressed i literes or ml per min. When you have a liter value you can get a rough estimate of how many kcalories of ebnergy is produced by multiplying liters VO2 X 5. It takes about 20 liters of oxygen for an average sized person to run a mile so 5X20 = 100 kcals. This varies a great deal with body size. The absolute value is of more importance for an athlete trying to generate a lot of force (against the water with an oar for example) so it pays to be big for those 8-oar scullers. The bigger yuo are the greater the absolut VO2. Running examples are Ryun and Lindgren, both with relative VO2max over 80. Jim's absolute value was 6 liters, Lindgren's 4.6liters. But divide Ryun's 6000ml max by his 72.64 kg mass (160 lbs when fit)and you get 82.6. Gerry's smaller absolute value of 4600 ml is divided by his 55.8 kg (123 lbs) and you get 82.4. No wonder Jim was running a mid-8:20s 2 mile in one meet the same weekend Gerry was running a 12:53 3mile in another meet. Ryun went out in 4:14, Lindgren in 4:13. Regarding the other comments that appear about VO2max and relative performance. Anyone who has a really high VO2max and doesn't seem to run up to that value had oneo f 2 problems (1) the test was not acurately done (many possibilities here) or (2) this runner has poor running economy and it takes a greater VO2 to run at a speed that a more economical runner can achieve at a lower oxygen demand. VO2max by itself can be very missleading. Our tables assume a standard economy for all runners, which can be used to estimate a pseudo VO2max, which then can be turned around, using the same economy and predict a performance in other events. Our psuedo max (VDOT) may or may not match a lab-tested VO2max, which is OK. If your max test is better than we predict it means your economy is not as good as we gave you credit for; if a tested max is less than we predict then you are more economical than we gave you credit for

sounds to me like it might be more important to be economical. even a high vo2max can't make up for velocity loss with poor biomechanics.

Economy is about a lot more than biomechanics:

Economy can be separated into two components:

1) Metabolic = How efficiently the body processes oxygen.

2) Mechanical = How efficiently the legs interact with the running surface. This includes elasticity of tendon muscle complexes, the "stiffness" (has little to do with flexibility), and biomechanics.

Increasing training volume is the best way to improve component 1. Explosive/ballistic movements are the best way to improve component 2. For example plyos and short sprinting.

Additionally, overtraining almost never lowers VO2max or fractional utilization.

However, overtraining kills economy.

The key for continued improvement over the years lies mostly in the area of economy.

The absolute, surefire way to get faster--systematically increase your workload over months and years without overtraining.

Jack, I have a question about relative VO2max that coincides with some topics that pop up on letsrun from time to time. Say a person decides to start hitting the weight room and bulks up their upper body, adding a few kg. Most folks here would argue that this is detrimental to racing performance. Is it really as simple as lugging the extra weight, as in reducing the athlete's relative VO2max, and therefore reducing performance? It seems a 5% increase in weight automatically show up as a 5% reduction in relative VO2max, and by extension, VDOT also changes. That being the case, it seems that leaner is always better. I suspect that it's not quite so simple though. Is it fair to say that in some instances, increases in upper body strength might improve economy, and thus leave the athlete at the same performance level (I'll assume that we're not talking Schwartzenegger-esque bulk)? For that matter, if the increased upper body muscles are endurance trained, would they help clear lactate faster, or is the difference small enough to ignore?

Lastly, can you recommend a decent text on this sort of material?

I have another question related to something weve been talking about which relates to the O2 consumption idea. I know that people are very inefficient breathers and only exchange approx 5-10% of the lung capacity with each breath. Has anyone ever tried to do some sort of breathing excercises and if so what. It seems like if u could even get this up to 15% (or whatever) it could be extremely beneficial. I have just started timing my breathing and my steps(which is hard for me i have to do them seperately ugh perhaps im deficient in counting ability) and have briefly experimetned with breathing a bit harder but not really very much.Would u be able to make the diaphragm stronger and be able to exchange a bit more air and therefore get more O2? Or would u just make ursself dizzy or get a cramp hehehe? I might keep trying a bit anyway i dont know.

you have to wonder if it is about getting more oxygen into the lungs - or if it is about utilizing it.

For a normal healthy person, the lung capacity is not the limiting factor (although it will be if you are asthmatic), but the delivery system that send the blood/oxygen to the working muscles.

Although untrained muscles can be improved, there will come a time when they are limited by oxygen delivery. Basically the muscles say, if you deliver it, we'll use it. Which is why even in the most hihgly trained humans, epo/tents/altitude (whihc enrich the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood) still gives them that extra boost.

So, at the end of the day, cardiac output is probably the limiting factor (assuming ideal training and top notch health/blood values) to your personal VO2max. You need a bigger pump.

yeah this makes sense- i have thought i have a little hummingbird heart cuz my HR was always higher than the others in group wos(they obv accused me of just trying to get more rest hehe). However this is not what i want to hear as i think my lungs are my best thing but oh well hehe.

just to let you know, i have a very high vo2 max, 84.5, but i have never run all that fast and probably never will. the number means something but it doesnt mean yer gonna be fast.